SATIRE AS A MORAL MESSAGE?

[Victor Pross]

"I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly." [Michel De Montaigne].

**

The above quote should speak to the heart of Objectivists, given today's "intellectuals."

I’m interested in getting feed-back on the idea of humor and satire as “outraged moral idealism.” That’s to say, can it be said that satire is a value if it’s used to undermine and cut-down all manners of corruption and pomposity? Can it be said that satire—when employed in the manner I suggest here—can serve as a reinforcement of values by virtue of variation. I am speaking of those witty writers and stand-up comics who have the Romantic’s disgust for the shabbiness and sham of a cynical and crooked age. I am speaking of those who hold up 'the good' by cutting down 'the bad.'

So I am NOT here speaking of making fun of the good, of justice and morality. I am not talking about “laughing at one’s self” or spitting at one’s self. Yes, it’s important to uphold values, heroes and the good, but this can also be served by virtue of contrast when the “gods of ribald mockery” serve to fire their rapier wit on well deserving targets. I am speaking of John Swift, Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde. And many more!

For clarity, one writer defines Satire thusly:

"A manner of writing that mixes a critical attitude with wit and humor in an effort to improve mankind and human institutions. Ridicule, irony, exaggeration, and several other techniques are almost always present. The satirist may insert serious statements of value or desired behavior, but most often he relies on an implicit moral code, understood by his audience and paid lip service by them."

And yet another writer describes satire as an "artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to bring about improvement."

Let's take a look at some examples:

“Abstract Art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” [AL CAP]

“For me, the single word ‘God’ suggests everything that is slippery, shady, squalid, foul and grotesque.” [Andre Breton]

“In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of the citizens to give to the other.” [Voltaire]

Does not a description of the bogus “human potential movement” receive a just dessert when it is described as “fast food for inner growth, California style.”?

I am reminded of the satirical touches that can be found in The Fountainhead. Louis Cook’s “word salad” literature is but one example. It speaks of the postmodernism that was to come in the 1950s, but most definitely in the 1960s. Ayn Rand seems to be having a great deal of fun making fun of these types of people—creatures she must have experienced first-hand. (She merely had the good grace to assign a fictional name to the actual ‘real life’ prototypes.) Peter Keating is ruthlessly ridiculed—and we all know that the real life prototype of this creep is every goddamn sucking-up “brown noser” that fills the rooms of any corporation.

Can a 'moral message' of a witty essay, joke or satirical take be persuasive—because it was specifically presented in a humorous fashion? We all know of reverence. What can be said for irreverence?

Feed-back?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved this from the Humor section, as that is a place to be funny. I will be commenting on this article later as I have a few thoughts.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I have many thoughts on humor, but I think the strongest one in terms of Objectivism is that the traditional Objectivist view of humor is akin to Original Sin. Before I get into that, I want to look at some things.

To start with, laughter is part of man’s nature. As children, we learn to laugh at a very early age and this capacity stays with us until we die. There are several ways to provoke laughter (including physical ones like tickling), but humor is the most widely used. Humor also is a multi-billion dollar market in entertainment. Nobody forces people to plunk down their bucks for comedy and satire, they do it because they want to. The sheer size of the market is proof that humor serves a basic human need. Nobody certainly tells a child to laugh at cartoons or even be fascinated by them. Yet there they sit for hours on end in front of the boob tube.

There is a very interesting Wikipedia article on laughter that I read in order to respond to your article. Here’s a quote:

Humor is a metaphysical negation. We regard as funny that which contradicts reality: the incongruous and the grotesque. Take the crudest example of humor: a dignified gentleman in top hat and tails walks down the street, slips on a banana peel, and falls down in a ludicrous position. Why is this supposed to be amusing? Because of the incongruity: if a dignified man falls down over a stupid object like a banana peel, it establishes him as contradictory to and unfit to deal with reality. That is what one laughs at.

(...)

Observe that man is the only being who can laugh. There is no such thing as a laughing animal. Only man has a volitional consciousness, and thus a choice between that which he regards as serious and that which he does not. Only man has the power to identify: This is reality—and this is a contradiction of reality.

(...)

What you find funny depends on what you want to negate. It is proper to laugh at evil (the literary form of which is satire) or at the negligible. But to laugh at the good is vicious.  

(...)

Humor as the exclusive ingredient of a story is a dubious form of writing. While some people have acquired great skill at it, such humor is philosophically empty because it is merely destruction in the name of nothing.

In sum, humor is a destructive element. If the humor of a literary work is aimed at the evil or the inconsequential—and if the positive is included—then the humor is benevolent and the work completely proper. If the humor is aimed at the positive, at values, the work might be skillful literarily, but it is to be denounced philosophically.

This, I submit, is one area where Rand was extremely incomplete – too much so. (A typical criticism I have of several aspects of Objectivism is not that it is wrong, but incomplete instead. That is why I am comfortable with the title of Objectivist. I think the core stuff is correct, even if not always complete.)

What Rand describes is only one kind of humor – mocking. Owing to man’s ingrained capacity for laughter, there are many types of humor that provoke laughing, not just ones based on philosophical principles.

But let’s put Rand’s first example, the dignified gentleman slipping on a banana peel, in her own terms – philosophical ones. If this man got up, laughed it off and went about his business, would he be laughing at the best within himself and displaying a death premise? Would he be declaring himself unfit for existence? Or would he be reacting to a condition of reality where he has no control – where things just bump into each other at times, but still manage to survive intact? I suppose relief could be included, but why not an affirmation of the fact that man is so constructed that he can easily survive slipping on a banana peel? This is not only plausible, it is a commonly felt emotion and stems from a “life premise.”

Rand was generally a sourpuss when it came to traditional humor. By projecting this into a philosophical principle to cover ALL humor, she turned one of man’s basic drives into a built-in defect that needs to be programmed out of him. This is nothing more than a variation of Original Sin. Her theory stands if applied only to mocking. If applied to other forms of humor, it is “wrong.” I prefer “incomplete,” since mocking is a form of humor.

But many Objectivists take this view to heart as complete and turn into sneering, snide, snarky assholes who wouldn’t know how to react if they slipped on a banana peel themselves. They would pout and sulk if someone laughed. Look at what they do when they are wrong.

A very good example of Objectivist spiritual suicide involves the dastardly Hsieh. Here is a quote from her blog on November 28, 2005 called “Malicious Humor”:

Personally, I've found such humor to be so common that I have some trouble noticing the more subtle variations, even in myself. Yet it's important to train your subconscious against such malicious humor. To allow it to remain means undermining your own and others' passion for and commitment to the meaningful values and virtues in life.

When I read that back then, I thought, “My God! She is on a consciously chosen path of self-inflicted brainwashing.” Instead of protecting herself against undermining her own passion for the good, she is short circuiting her capacity for joy. Look at her steady stream of denouncing posts if you want to see evidence of the result. Who could put all that effort into something they hated if not a world-class sourpuss?

//;-))

You might be interested to know that you have become the subject of discussion on another forum, The Autonomist. Check this out. Apparently you are seen as the end of Objectivism because you like Lenny Bruce. If you have time to read that thread, you will see discussed clearly much of what I find limiting in the traditional sourpuss/mocking view of humor that far too many Objectivists display.

Now let’s look at your own work. You want satire to make formal moral statements, but is that what you do? Is there no playfulness and joy of living involved? For instance, when you were commissioned in 2004 to do a caricature of a famous film director, Ron Howard (The Da Vinci Code, Cinderella Man, The Missing, A Beautiful Mind, etc.), do you think Mr. Howard was on a campaign to show the world how morally bankrupt he was and how ridiculous he thought himself to be?

Or do you think he liked the idea of a mental poke in the ribs? A mental tickle, so to speak? Wouldn’t this be a manner of him saying to himself that despite the “emphasized obvious” of his physical being, he has achieved wonderful things in life? btw – I loved the title of an article I read about you where your Howard commission was discussed: “Exaggerating the obvious.”

I believe you are enough of an artist to be much more interested in finding your own voice than stifling your art by trying to squeeze it into Rand’s limited humor (mocking) mold. Look what you said in the article:

Most of my work is self-generated and holds no other direction other than what this artist gave it. In fact, in creating many of the present works I found at some moments I flew out of myself, becoming purely a channel for inspiration; there was an almost total loss of self-consciousness.

This, I submit, is a statement of a real artist, not a phony-baloney trying to teach his betters to obey what he doesn’t even know himself – which is what I find the aggressive Objectivists to be when they discuss humor. Incidentally, Rand was not a phony-baloney, but she was no comedian either. You are a comedian, Victor. You are good at it.

You don’t just mock people. You highlight the obvious in people and make it strange and unusual. You turn the commonplace into a wonder and show just how great it is to be alive with so many marvelous things to look at and laugh about. Not laugh because you look down on something or that it contradicts reality. Laugh because it is so strange and wonderful when you focus on it. (You mock at times too, but I think you know what I am getting at.)

You personally can learn much from Rand, as we all can. But you also can teach people about humor - as you do just by doing it. I advise you to can the attempt to be correct Objectivism-wise with your art and stick to your path of being correct Pross-wise.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

That was a very interesting response.

You know, I think you might have stolen my thought from my head while I was sleeping, because many of the things you wrote are exactly my own conclusions in regards to comedy and humor. It is a subject, as should be no surprise, which I have done a great deal of thinking about. This “be wary of humor--humor as such” in Objectivism is most regrettable. It's very sad--and it's a big mistake.

That article you dug up, Exaggerating the Obvious made me laugh. In the body of the article, there is a picture of some chick! And what I want to know is this: How did you find out about my sex operation?

Of course, I'm only kidding. [i better say I'M KIDDING least my remark become food for scandal]. The next thing I know there’ll be a new post at SOLO: “Pross has sex operation. Lenny Bruce fan and parody painter, Victor Pross, has decided that being of the male gender was humorless…”

Anyway, I will have more to say in regards to what you wrote, but right now...I’m pressed for time. [plus these heels are killing me]

Soon! This is very interesting stuff!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

A chick? That's not you?

Here I was wondering if you had your breasts removed for your website picture...

Michael

[Victor Pross]

One more thing for now....

I'm the end of Objectivism because I like Lenny Bruce, huh? If this type of thing doesn't deserve mocking, I don't know what does. There are, of course, many terrible things about Bruce...his destructive drug habit for example.

As I wrote:

"The First Amendment was under attack. Bruce fought like a Christian tossed to the lions. 'I have a right to say the things I'm saying, I'm not hurting anybody. They're just words.'

But the issue here is not if one agrees with the words of Lenny Bruce—but to fight to the death his right to say them. The First Amendment is here to protect even the most so-called “offensive” words—-for if we all agreed and loved everything uttered and heard, there would be no need for the First Amendment! Without freedom of speech, we might as well fold tent and forget about this culture. Are we to ignore the Lenny Bruce story and toss him off as a mere "dirty comic" from the by-gone age of 1950s America?

In the end, it was Lenny Bruce who was judging us: “I’m not a comedian. And I’m not sick,” Bruce cried out during one of his many trials. “The world is sick and I’m the doctor. I’m a surgeon with a scalpel for false values.”

***

THIS PART of my article is the most salient and key point in my motive to write about Lenny Bruce:

The First Amendment is here to protect even the most so-called “offensive” words—-for if we all agreed and loved everything uttered and heard, there would be no need for the First Amendment! Without freedom of speech, we might as well fold tent and forget about this culture.

Is this not true or what?

-------------------------

[Dragonfly]

Another Rand quote (Ayn Rand Lexicon):

To laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself is monstrous.... The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in you own face.

I've seldom read such nonsense. Beware of people who can't laugh at themselves! The hidden premise in Rand's quote is that you are a perfect human being, without any flaws, so that if you laugh at yourself, you must automatically laugh at something noble and good. This notion is of course completely crazy, nobody is perfect, every person has some traits or does some things that may be laughed at without implying that the person must therefore be bad or evil. The most dangerous people are those who think that they are perfect and that they Know the Truth, they are the fanatics who think that they'll "save" the world, but who end up by only causing lots of misery.

Michael, that Hsieh quote was indeed horrifying, I've seldom seen a better example of the dangers of Objectivism. And you're right: the result of this autobrainwashing are all too evident!

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

The dangers of Objectivism? Rand’s views on humor (as her views about a women president) are not part of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism.

My conviction of the rightness of this philosophy is not contradicted by the fact of, say, my digging Lenny Bruce or my failure to collect stamps. All the things I cited just now were Rand’s opinions. There are many things I disagree with Rand about---but not the fundamentals of her philosophy in the major brances--speaking in terms of essentials, of course.

[edited--I know you addressed Mike, but I had to jump in].

[Victor Pross]

http://pc.blogspot.com/2006_06_04_pc_archive.html

This is interesting...just came across it. Scroll on down when you click on this site. [hint: see the ape]. A satire on a subject that deserves it!

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Howard Roark laughed."

I took his laughter not as being directed at evil but as an expression of a joying in life, a gladness at being alive and anticipating his future.

Another scene, in Rand's story "The Simplest Thing on Earth." The narrator describes his wife (I'm paraphrasing from memory) as having a wonderful mouth which looked as if she smiled often and would smile at any moment.

These touches don't mesh with her stated views on humor (which I agree are wretched).

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Ellen:

These touches don't mesh with her stated views on humor (which I agree are wretched).

I dont' see what they have to do with humor at all. Not every laughter or smile is the result of humor. These are obviously not.

[Dragonfly]

Victor:

The dangers of Objectivism? Rand’s views on humor (as her views about a women president) are not part of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism.

I don't know what the fundamental tenets of Objectivism are. I'm fairly sure that if you'd asked Rand about it she wouldn't said that it was merely a personal opinion but that she emphatically would have stated that it followed from her philosophy, while I don't think that Rand would have said the same of her ideas of a woman president. Further I think it isn't really relevant whether her ideas on this are formally part of the fundamentel tenets of Objectivism, the danger is in the movement, the cult, and personally I think that her philosophy was quite conducive to breeding such a cult with all the accompanying features. See also Nathaniel Branden's article The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, in which the hazards he describes are neither all part of the formal philosophy, but the results of trying to apply that philosophy. I think this hazard would fit well into that article.

[Dragonfly]

The narrator describes his wife (I'm paraphrasing from memory) as having a wonderful mouth which looked as if she smiled often and would smile at any moment.

The exact text is: She had a lovely mouth. You could always tell things about people by their mouth. Hers looked as if she wanted to smile at the world, and if she didn't it was her own fault, and she really would in a moment, because she was all right and so was the world.

[gary williams]

Rand wrote:  

Humor is a metaphysical negation. We regard as funny that which contradicts reality: the incongruous and the grotesque. Take the crudest example of humor: a dignified gentleman in top hat and tails walks down the street, slips on a banana peel, and falls down in a ludicrous position. Why is this supposed to be amusing? Because of the incongruity: if a dignified man falls down over a stupid object like a banana peel, it establishes him as contradictory to and unfit to deal with reality. That is what one laughs at.  

(...)  

Observe that man is the only being who can laugh. There is no such thing as a laughing animal. Only man has a volitional consciousness, and thus a choice between that which he regards as serious and that which he does not. Only man has the power to identify: This is reality—and this is a contradiction of reality.  

(...)  

What you find funny depends on what you want to negate. It is proper to laugh at evil (the literary form of which is satire) or at the negligible. But to laugh at the good is vicious.  

(...)  

Humor as the exclusive ingredient of a story is a dubious form of writing. While some people have acquired great skill at it, such humor is philosophically empty because it is merely destruction in the name of nothing.  

In sum, humor is a destructive element. If the humor of a literary work is aimed at the evil or the inconsequential—and if the positive is included—then the humor is benevolent and the work completely proper. If the humor is aimed at the positive, at values, the work might be skillful literarily, but it is to be denounced philosophically.

Alas, I was all set to type something viciously witty, but this sucked all the fun out of me.

To laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself is monstrous.... The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in you own face.

A'right a'ready! Ayn baby, loosen up! I'm starting to get bummed!

And, is it really the worst evil?

Give me some credit. I can think up many, many more evil things to do to me other than poking fun at myself.

So what (wink, wink) if I make fun of the fact that my knuckles drag the ground or I remark about my being raised by circus folk or maybe I say something about my freakishly large head. (Jeez! Anything that big ought to have it's own moon, for crying out loud!!!)

Is that truely the worst evil? Hmm? I think not.

I think it is not as evil as say......giving myself a bikini wax (not gonna' happen) or sleeping with Whoopie Goldberg or making myself sit through Al Gore's new movie or wearing a Speedo in public.........See, I could get real evil with myself if I wanted to.

Why am I talking to a dead woman?

I flew out of myself, becoming purely a channel for inspiration; there was an almost total loss of self-consciousness.

That happened to me once - then the cops made me put my clothes back on and then I was escorted downtown.

Hope I didn't get any spit on anybody! I was aiming for myself, but missed!

Question? - (Hopefully, without causing folks to come at me with sticks and stones.)

Could laughter be said to be an 'instinct' of consciousness? It is a phenomenon of conscious entities. (except Diana Hsieh & Penelope Beach) I hate to use the word instinct, but it would seem to fit. Laughter manifests itself in a fashion simular to other instinctive responses in lesser, non conscious beings. (Perigo/Jackal response)

Just throwing it out there!

gw

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly

Right off, you say that you don’t know what the fundamentals of Objectivism are, but you feel that you know enough to proclaim it as a destructive philosophy. How does that work? [oh, yes...N. Branden's article].

I once had the opportunity to debate the topic of Capitalism versus Socialism. Before I set out to debate team the subject, I prepared myself to the teeth to know the philosophy of Marxism and socialism---and, of course, Capitalism. And it wasn’t a night’s cram session—I studied damn hard and long before I felt adequate to either critique it in writing or formally debate it. [seven years].

NOT that I’m prescribing that to you.

In regards to speculating about what Rand “might have said,” I don’t care to venture into a hypothetical construct to build upon my case. I only know what Rand in fact did say.

Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of Objectivism while standing on one foot. Her answer was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality

Epistemology: Reason

Ethics: Self-interest

Politics: Capitalism.

From the above, of course, comes a lot of detail and application. But you will not find in Objectivism the injunction that one must collect stamps, like the colors blue/green and avoid comedy clubs.

Now you mention N. Branden’s article. Really, sir, there is no need to provide a link to it. Of course, I know of it.

In any event, you suggest that I read Nathaniel Branden's article The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, “in which the hazards he describes are neither all part of the formal philosophy, but the results of trying to apply that philosophy.”

Are you ascribing to a theory/practice split? Is your brush stroke so broad as to say that any philosophy cannot be put into action as it is formulated in theory—and that this is necessarily so.

Of course, there is a lot more I could say, but before doing so I would like to ask you a question. You are obviously not an Objectivist—what are you? That is, what is your philosophy? What are your fundamental views of life, yourself, others, existence---a philosophy, that is...what ideas guides your life?

One more thing: Please don’t refer to Objectivism as a cult. Whatever your disagreement with this philosophy—it is not a cult. You know, there are many philosophies that I disagree with and that I find very destructive—but I don’t necessarily designate them as a “cult.” I don’t do this because I know the definition of the word, and I don’t use it promiscuously merely because no other word comes to mind when I’m in a smearing mood.

Actually, this is the last thing: Since this thread is about satire, I don’t want to jump off the thread topic. Very shortly, I will be posting an article called “The hatred of Objectivism is the hatred of objectivity.”

If you care to respond, I will be most happy to pick it from there. I can imagine that your objection to Objectivism is more layered than Rand's view on humor. Would you care to detail what exactly it is about this philosophy that irks you--if indeed it does. Then tell me your philosophy--the fundamentals, if not the details.

***

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

For the record, Dragonfly knows much more about Objectivism than many of the so-called defenders of the philosophy. He is just disgusted with much of what he he has seen in general: too much arrogance and too little knowledge.

I suggest you bear with him. His objections make you think. (Besides, the focus here is analyzing, not defending.) And he's a helluva nice guy.

(He and I don't agree on everything, either.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

For the record, Dragonfly knows much more about Objectivism than many of the so-called defenders of the philosophy. He is just disgusted with much of what he he has seen in general: too much arrogance and too little knowledge.

Oh, well...that's a different story. I beg your pardon, Mr. Dragonfly.

I suggest you bear with him. His objections make you think. (Besides, the focus here is analyzing, not defending.) And he's a helluva nice guy.

Do you have some links to the "objections that make you think" so I can learn more about Dragonfly?

[Rodney]

I posted on Noodlefood some months ago on the nature of humor, if anyone wants to look it up. I made the point that Rand focused on humor in only one usage: making light of, or fun of, something. I proposed the alternative view that something humorous indirectly points out some pleasing or significant truth in an oblique manner that requires a flash of perspicuity to grasp. (This would explain, for example, why both caricatures and kittens are funny; and it suggests a trigger for the laughter response.)

At least, I got some of that out before I decided not to continue on that board. I am just too busy, and not in the mood these days, to get into intense online debates (especially there--I don't like the tone).

Humor is intimately involved with truth, our evaluation of it, and the various ways it might be hailed among others, to our mutual delight.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

The reason we interact with intelligent people who disagree with us is for an extremely selfish reason. If our ideas can bear up under serious intelligent challenge, then we become much wiser. Wisdom is the ultimate value to attaining serenity and happiness.

It is easy to trounce an idiot. Anybody can do that. Or even trounce an intelligent person if you have a gang of rude people around who don't want to make a minimum effort at understanding (like you know where). But does that really do anything of any value - selfishly or for the world? Anything at all? A person can show off for a moment. That's about the only real value I see produced.

Is that what studying a philosophy is all about? Is that what people are after? Showing off for a moment to a clique?

I'll take wisdom any day of the week. That is my considered and conscious choice.

Obtaining wisdom means that I have to surround myself with people smarter than me. That means often they will disagree with me and be right. If my little ego (in the bad sense) doesn't like the fact that one of my sacred cows gets barbecued sometimes, it would be an awfully good idea to find out why rather than shoot the cook. Maybe my sacred cow is not so sacred after all - or maybe I don't tend to it properly - or even maybe the cow should not be cooked. I'll only know if I study the reasons.

I believe the more honest people who shoot off their mouths too quickly and vehemently in Objectivism do so because they do not try to understand something cognitively before letting the normative kick in. They do not look before they leap. I wrote about this once and I intend to revive the idea in a much better article.

Anyway, I digress. You asked about our dear Dragonfly. Links?

Hmmmmm...

Let's keep this in humor for now since that is what we are discussing.

Try this one (and click on the link to him too). And this one (which you've probably already seen).

That should do for a start (and there is oodles of stuff).

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

What the hell am I doing on this thread? I know nothing about humour. I officially gave up trying to be funny years ago. Every once in a while it sneaks up on me and I find people laughing at me but I don’t know why. Let me outta here!

Where is causality? Where is causality? What a thing is determines what it does. Ahhh, safety!

The Straight Man

[Victor Pross]

"If my little ego (in the bad sense) doesn't like the fact that one of my sacred cows gets barbecued sometimes, it would be an awfully good idea to find out why rather than shoot the cook. Maybe my sacred cow is not so sacred after all..."

Indeed. I'm reminded of a line from that great wit H.L Mencken [who Rand admired, I think.]

"The most common of all follies is to belive passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rodney,

Here is the link to your discussion. I read some of it, but is was like watching a convict try to run with a ball and chain on his leg. Trying to get through it all was depressing. You almost got banned for not being an "honest and fair interlocutor"??? You???

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... (Now that was funny.)

Gary and Paul,

Hilarious posts!

Michael

[NickOtani]

It was wrong for Joan Rivers to make fun of Liz Taylor for being fat. Liz felt she had to laugh at it, though, so as not to give Joan the satisfaction of knowing that Joan’s words were hurting her. When Liz was on the Oprah Winfrey show, Oprah told her that she would not laugh, and this got applause from the audience. However, when David Letterman made fun of Dr. Phil’s bald head, Dr. Phil laughed and said it would be a sad state of affairs if we can’t laugh at ourselves. Is there a difference here?

Shortly after the tsunami in Southeast Asia, there were some inappropriate, racist jokes. As a Japanese American, I would not laugh at these and denounced them. I do value freedom of speech, but I think radio commentators who spread these jokes should not be encouraged to do so. I use my freedom of speech to condemn them.

In a few of Shakespeare’s histories, the character of Sir John Falstaff provided comedy relief. He was a fat, incompetent person who was always being caught in lies about his own heroism. He made fun of himself. He was not very respectable, but perhaps he was better than Henry IV, who played cruel jokes on a lowly bar attendant. I respect this even less.

Ayn Rand, herself, was portrayed in a Simpsons’ cartoon. She was the fascist-like head of a children’s nursery where she would not allow babies to rely on pacifiers. I’m certain Ayn Rand would not find this funny.

One of my college professors, after learning that I was an atheist, told a joke about an atheist who was fishing in Loch Ness when the monster came up under his boat and threw him in the air. “Please help me, God!” he screamed. Then, everything stopped in place and a voice came out of the heavens and said, “I thought you didn’t believe in me.”

The atheist replied, “Give me a break! A few seconds ago, I didn’t believe in the Loch Ness monster either.”

I laughed.

There is also great humor about Christianity, even though Jesus was not much of a comedian, and Christians have laughed at it. Not everything is a matter of life and death, but there is a kind of humor that goes too far. The racists jokes that make fun of victims of disasters and atrocities is condemnable, and the annoying trolling which takes place on some messageboards, people trying to offend, just for sport, someone who is prone to take things seriously, is not funny to me.

Once I get to know someone, though, there is banter that means we are friends. There is humor that shows respect. This is what was explored in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Victor Pross]

Honestly, I have to say that as I was reading Rodney's and Diana's exchange, I didn't think that Diana's basic request that Rodney provide examples and quotes--to substantiate his claim--was unreasonable. I have come across way too may people whose brush strokes are so broad, who are loud on accusation and short on evidence, that when I see it employed against someone (even if I may have an issue with that ‘someone’) my sympathy goes towards the person who calls for evidence—ALWAYS.

[ EDIT: One poster writes: "Rodney's out-of-the-blue attack upon Robert Mayhew was unjust. Mayhew is perhaps the most careful and diligent scholar I know. So although I hadn't read the article in question, the idea that he engaged in anything like "mental gymnastics" for the sake of defending some Objectivist faith is absurd." ]

I would agree with this because I have been to Mr. Mayhew's talks many times...that is, when he came to Canada. And I had the great pleasure to have dinner with the man [and freinds of his and mine]. He's a great gent. His good humor and zestful manner cannot be faked. Not only is he funny--of course, he's very intelligent. Here's a guy that loves life.

**Mr. Williams...are you addressing me??? :-s

In any case, I certainly want to read this 'Ayn Rand laughed" article.

[gary williams]

Ahhhhhh.......See!

A Leopard cannot change it's spots!

Or is it a Tiger and it's stripes?

Or is it a Jackass and it's jackass-ness?

Oh well! At least you know I am watching!

Of course I am talking about Paul, the humor-intolerant Canuck!

Pitty! Canadians are soooooooooo funny, yet they almost never ever laugh! Must be all that snow!

Oh well; your great big, igloo skyscrapered, Super Dave Osborn loving country keeps me in stitches! Thank you!

Oh, wait a minute. Did I say I was talking about Paul?

I was refering to the other Jackass....er....Tiger....er....Leopard.

I am truly sorry Paul.

My mistake!

But you people all look alike!

What was that other guys name? Hmmmmmm? I want to say...Dick?!!!

Not sure if that is it though. I'll just wait and see if he really is a Dick or not. Just to be sure, I'll just keep watching.

Anyway,

To whoever was wondering......and in a snide tone, I might add.

This is how you find what Dragonfly has said........here.

1. Log in

2. Click on memberlist.

3. Find the member named Dragonfly.

In America it is spelled -

D-R-A-G-O-N-F-L-Y! Use a Canadian/English dictionary for the translation.

(I am sorry. No need for me to be rude. I should'a said use a French-Canadian/English dictionary!)

(Just so you know - in a Texas dictionary, Dragonflies are called Snake Doctors! (True) Just wanted you to know that in case you ever end up on Jeopardy!)

4. Then click on the blue writing that says "find all posts by Dragonfly."

5. Stop acting like a Dick.

6. If all else fails, see #5!

Of course the Snake Doctor will find you! I am sure of it!

Ahhhhhhhhhhh...............all this civility feels soooooo good!!!!!!

Hey! What's say we all get together, open some ice cold Molsens and make fun of the World Cup?

I'm game!

Or we could play another game -

'See...Dick...run...........'

gw